Talk:Stephen Fry

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

No

Seriously, the fuck? --Token Conservative (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether this article would be mission-related, but we have one on Dara Ó Briain, and Fry's pretty anti-woo. That said, the article as it is sucks, and I don't really know what to write.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tolerable now?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Better. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I wikify the Stephen Fry references on RW now?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, but you can certainly delete this article and the one on Dara, since both of them have fuck all to do with our mission guideline, or whatever the fuck RW is using this week to decide what articles are worth keeping.--Token Conservative (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mark Twain, too? (Also, what's with all the expletives? Calm down.)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 07:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge them into List of celebrities who happen to be atheists. Then delete the list. Sophie^Wilder 07:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr Fry has me blocked on Twitter! This causes me immense anguish. Scream!! (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes

If an article on Stephen Fry isn't part of our mission then something is definitely wrong. Damo^Hi 05:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How so? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Because he is a very popular and prominent intellectual who is a debunker of woo and all sorts of woo like thinking that goes along with it. If we don't have Fry, then we shouldn't have Hitchens either. Damo^Hi 05:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Where in our mission statement does it say anything about talking about how cool anti-woo intellectuals are? Because I'm pretty damn sure it's not in our mission statement. And yes, our article on Hitchens needs to be deleted too. Or we can collectively admit we've never given a shit about our mission statement and make something we might actually follow. But until then, this is off topic and should be deleted.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Our mission statement has always been interpreted rather fuzzily. I'm not really a member here anymore so if you guys want to delete it, I won't fight it, but I stand absolutely by my statement above that if an article on Stephen Fry isn't part of the mission then something has gone wrong. Ditto for Hitchens. Damo^Hi 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Our mission statement has always been interpreted rather fuzzily Recently it's just been ignored for doing whatever a few assholes want to do.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to that because I don't know what you are referring to, but if thinking that an article on a prominent and reasonably outspoken atheist, woo debunker and homosexual rights activist should be included on this here wiki makes me an asshole then I wear the tag proudly. Damo^Hi 06:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about a few specific assholes, not you. I agree we should have an article on them, but its not mission relevant while our mission is what it is.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For years and years we have had articles roughly similar to this one without any issues. I think if there are any assholes here, it is those who think that the mission list is a document to be interpreted narrowly and pedantically. Frankly I wonder if some of you guys have even read the community standards which state: "...However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important w individuals throughout the world." [1] Even if an article on Stephen Fry does not fit within the mission (though I say it does), it should still be here because his work regarding religion, woo, anti-homophobia and work relating to the de-stigmatisation of mental illness is of general interest to the community. Like I say, if Fry doesn't belong here then something has gone drastically, drastically wrong. Damo^Hi 07:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, stop being an asshole. — ^{(talk to)} /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I say keep. Definitely needs to be fleshed out, though, I'll see if I can add to it if when I get the time. Balaam (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I also say keep. Being as he's a skeptic, the guy fits well within our mission. Sure the article needs work, but that's what wikis are all about. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, being a skeptic is currently totally not mission as mission only defines what we are against. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But we have to follow the mission, so we can't be skeptics then. — ^{(talk to)} /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)